RAM NARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5-3-94, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Shri Ganganagar, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted appellant Sukhdeo Singh for the offence under Section 302 IPC and appellant Ram Narain Singh for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500.00 each and in default of payment of fine further to undergo four month's simple imprisonment.

(2.) Accused-appellants Ram Narain Singh and Sukhdeo Singh were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Shri Ganganagar, for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 302 IPC, respectively, for committing the murder of Niranjan Singh nearing the Sale Out-let of country-made liquour in Chak No. 1-X on 1-9-90 at 8.00 p.m. The case of the prosecution is that deceased Niranjan Singh agreed to sell twenty-two Bighas of his land to his brother accused Ram Narain Singh and took an advance of Rs. 10,000.00. Later on, Niranjan Singh annulled this agreement and returned the advance of Rs. 10,000.00 to his brother Ram Narain Singh. On account of this animosity, a quarrel took place between Ram Narain Singh and Niranjan Singh out side the liquor shop. Gursharan Singh - the other brother- was returning from Gurdeo Singh Bawri's house and when he reached near the Diggi (water pond) of the village, he heard the noise coming from the side of the liquor shop. On hearing the noise, his sister-in-law Jasveer Kaur (widow of Niranjan Singh) and Jagsir Singh (son of Niranjan Singh), also, came there. Niranjan Singh and accused Ram Narain Singh were quarrelling with each other. Ram Narain Singh was armed with a Lathi, who was inflicting injuries by Lathi on the person of Niranjan Singh. In the meanwhile, Ram Narain Singh's son accused Sukhdeo Singh came there armed with a Sela and inflicted injuries by the Sela on the right thigh of Niranjan Singh. Niranjan Singh ran towards the road-side. Accused Sukhdeo Singh and Ram Narain Singh followed Niranjan Singh. Sukhdeo Singh hit another Sela blow on the left side of the chest of Niranjan Singh and on receiving this Sela injury, Niranjan Singh fell down. Gursharan Singh, Jasveer Singh and Jagsir Singh thereafter raised alarms, upon which the accused asked them not to proceed further otherwise they would be done to death. The accused thereafter ran away. After when the accused went away Gursharan Singh, Jasveer Kaur and Jagsir Singh went near injured Niranjan Singh and saw that blood was coming out from the injuries but he was not speaking. He went to the village and called Dr. Avtar Singh, who after seeing Niranjan Singh declared him dead. The prosecution in sup port of its case, examined ten witnesses. The ac cused, in their defence, examined DW 1 Gurdeo Singh. PW 3 Gursharan Singh and PW 4 Jagsir Singh are the two eye witnesses of the occurrence. This evidence of the eye witnesses is sought to be cor roborated from the evidence of PW 2 Natha Singh the other brother of the deceased Whose evidence relates to the motive for commission of the crime and the motive, according to this witness, was the animosity between the accused and the deceased on account of backing-out of the deceased from trans ferring the land in favour of accused Ram Narain Singh which he earlier agreed to sell. PW 1 Dr. Avtar Singh is a Registered Medical Practitioner, practis ing in Chak 1-X, who was immediately called at the place of the occurrence and when he reached there, by that time Niranjan Singh breathed his last. The evidence of these witnesses is further sought to be corroborated from the evidence of PW 7 Dr. Yashpal Singh, who conducted the post-mortem on the corpose of Niranjan Singh and from the evidence of PW 5 Praja Singh the Motbir witness who is a wit ness to the recovery of the blood-stained Lathi, Sela and the clothes of the accused. PW 8 Khetpal Singh was the Constable working in Police Station, Keshrisinghpur, who, on 16-10-90, took thirteen sealed packets from the Malkhana Incharge Kanta Singh and after obtaining a forwarding letter from the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Shri Ganganagar, deposited the same for FSL examina tion in the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. PW 9 Kanta Singh was the Head Constable and Incharge of the Malkhana of he Police Station, with whom ten packets were deposited by the SHO on 2-9-90 and four packets on 6-9-90, who gave all these fourteen packets to PW 8 Khetpal Singh on 15-10-90 for taking them for FSL examination to the aforesaid Laboratory. PW 10 Hukmi Chand is he investigating officer, who, on the relevant date, was posted as the Station House Officer of the Police Station, in whose presence the report was lodged and who went at the place of the incident at 10.45 p.m. on 1-9-90; conducted the investigation, arrested the accused; made certain recoveries, prepared the site-plan etc. and after investigation, presented the challan against the accused. The learned Additional Ses sions Judge, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as stated above. While convict ing and sentencing the accused-appellants, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the murder was committed by the ac cused-appellants in furtherance of the common in tention of both of them on account of animosity between the accused and the deceased regarding the land which the deceased agreed to sell to accused Ram Narain Singh but later on backed-out. The learned trial Court believed the evidence of the eye witnesses PW 3 Gursharan Singh and PW 4 Jagsir Singh. The learned trial Court, also, came to the conclusion that the evidence of the eye-witnesses stand corroborated from the evidence of motive disclosed by PW 2 Natha Singh and PW 3 Gursharan Singh and the recoveries of the human-blood-stained Lathi and the Sela and the recoveries of the clothes of the accused, which contained 'O' Group of the blood, which was the blood-group of the deceased. The appellants, by way of this appeal, have chal lenged the judgment dated 5-3-94, passed by the learned trial Court, convicting and sentencing them as aforesaid.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that; (i) the FIR was lodged after due deliberation and consultation and it is a post-inves tigation document and the part played by the ac cused has not been specifically assigned in the FIR; (ii) the prosecution has not come with the true version of the case and the genesis of the occurrence is not known; (iii) the appellants had no motive to kill deceased Niranjan Singh as the deal had already been cancelled and the amount of advance returned by the deceased was accepted by accused Ram Narain, Singh; (iv) the independent witnesses of the village have not been produced and only the relative and interested witnesses, whose statements are not free from doubt, have been produced by the prosecu tion and relied upon by the learned trial Court; (v) the injuries found on the person of the deceased have not been disclosed by the doctor as sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and, there fore, the appellants cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 302 or 302/34, IPC (vi) the evidence of PW 3 Gursharan Singh and PW 4 Jagsir Singh do not find support from the medical evidence rather it stands contradicted. The prosecution came with the case that two types of weapons (Lathi and Sela) were used in the commission of the crime while the medical evidence discloses the use of three types of weapons and the Sela has not been put to the doctor to disclose that the injuries can be caused by this Sela; (vii) it was not possible for the witnesses to have seen and identified the accused from the distance from where they allege to have seen the occurrence. The learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and submitted that the accused-appellants have been rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court.